WIPO Domain Name Decision DSE2020-0042 for nerosten.se

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceeding Accelerated Proceeding Case No. DSE2020-0042 1. Petitioner

The Petitioner is Nerostein Oü,Estonia, represented by Advokaadibüroo Derling Primus Oü, Estonia. 2. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder is R.L, Sweden. 3. Domain Name and Procedural History

This Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding relates to the domain name .

This Petition was filed under the Terms and Conditions of registration (the “.se Policy”) and the Instructions governing Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding for domain names in the top-level domain .se (the “.se Rules”).

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“the Center”) verified that the Petition satisfied the formal requirements of the .se Policy and the .se Rules. In accordance with Section 13 of the .se Rules, the Center formally notified the Domain Holder of the Petition on August 6, 2020. The Domain Holder did not submit any response and, accordingly, the Center notified the Domain Holder's default on September 7, 2020.

The Center appointed Gunnar Karnell as the sole Arbitrator in this matter on September 10, 2020. The Arbitrator has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with Section 1 of the .se Rules. 4. Factual Background

The Petitioner refers in support of its claim in this proceeding to its exclusively owned European Union Trade Mark NEROSTEIN (No. 013530688), registered on May 2, 2015, for goods and services in Nice classes 19, 35, 37 and 42.

The Domain Holder created the disputed domain name on May 17, 2016. 5. The Petitioner’s Contentions

The disputed domain name , created more than a year later than the Petitioner’s trademark NEROSTEIN, is, notwithstanding the non-distinctive one-letter difference, confusingly similar to the Petitioner’s trademark as well as to its domain name (created November 30, 2014).

In use, the disputed domain name redirects to “https:/www.granitkungen.se/”, owned by a competitor to the Petitioner, the private company Granitkungen. The Petitioner’s customers, intent on connecting to its website “www.nerostein.se”, but making a spelling mistake, will become redirected to Granitkungen’s website, with ensuing economic consequences. Hence, the disputed domain name has been registered or used in bad faith. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the disputed domain name. 6. Claim

The Petitioner requests that the disputed domain name shall be transferred to the Petitioner. 7. Discussion and Findings A. The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally recognized in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights

The Petitioner has proven that it holds such entitlement as defined in Paragraph 7.2 of the se. Policy which is identical or similar to the disputed domain name . The last syllable of the disputed domain name, “sten”, is as close a translation as can be of the Petitioner’s trademark’s last syllable “stein” in German language. B. The Domain Name has been registered or used in bad faith

The Arbitrator finds no indication on the record that might impair the Petitioner’s conclusion that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. C. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the Domain Name.

Circumstances in support of a Domain Holder’s right or a justified interest in the disputed domain name have not been demonstrated. 8. Decision

The disputed domain name shall be transferred to the Petitioner.

Gunnar Karnell
September 17, 2020

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy